President Carter's Comments

Remove all ads!

Korea and Vietnam where both entered under false pretexts, as a matter of fact all of the Cold War operated under false pretexts. The missile gap was a know fabrication of the military-industrial complex. The United States entered WWI under false pretenses and a great deal more Americans died in that war then in Iraq.

We specifically had a direct hand setting up the horrid regimes in Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama during the 1960-1980s. We directly interfered with their politics and overturned their democratic institutions (ironically in the name of protecting democracy). The so called dangers of the U.S.S.R. caused us to interfere with Latin America in an unprecedented fashion.

It was explicitly set aside for the navy by Woodrow Wilson and the hundreds of thousands of 1922ish dollars he took in the forms of bribes are hard to call being legal. The no contract bid and the misuse of public lands set aside for strategic military purposes for public gain aside, he took in incredible amounts of money for the day in "loans". Bush's regime doesn't have this type of corruption. Teapot Dome is strikingly similar to some of the African nations where public funds disappear so the particular dictator can use them for his own benefit. It's hard to think of a more corrupt action in all of U.S. politics then that wonders performed by Mr. Harding's good friend.

As for Plame, Bush's cronies just come across as an inept form of J. Edgar Hoover who leaked all sorts of information to ruin, endanger or in the case of some black activists, kill his enemies, only Hoover did this in a skillful fashion.

Bush and cronies are merely copying the biggest mistakes in the history of U.S. politics, he's not even standout enough to come up with his own scandals and mismanagements.

 

I agree: Carter should have lied and said what a great prez Bush has been. We would all believe that...wouldn't we?

 

You totally missed the point. He shouldn't have lied, but he should have kept his mouth shut. Did Reagan or Bush Sr. critique Clinton while he was in office? Has Clinton critqued Bush II over the past eight years? The basic answer is no. They had the brains and decency to not try to undermine a sitting President.

For all of the assaults on Bush II's intelligence, if a Democrat takes the White House in 2008 does anybody think that Bush II would do something as inappropriate? I know I sure don't think he will and I would be horribly disappointed in him if he did.

I know it is a lot of fun to yuck it up at Bush's expense, but if you could just put aside the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS for short) for a little while and think about it, you will realize how inappropriate it was.

 

I fail to see what the 1st Amendment has to do with this. Or are you confused about what it means? If you are not sure, I highly recommend tracking down a fifth grader as I know they cover it very well.

To the best of my knowledge the government has never passed a law preventing former Presidents from criticizing, normally decency and protocol were sufficient to prevent it.

 

TGS: Yeah, although Carter was dead on with his comments, he should know better than to undermine the current president -- I think Carter's comments are somewhat historic in that I don't recall ever hearing a former president directly attack a president in office. However, a lot of behind-the-scenes discussions take place between the current president and former presidents (Clinton even took advice from Nixon on occasion). I'd like to give Carter the benefit of the doubt and believe he gave warnings to the current administration before going public.

For those who seem to claim Bush is the worst President ever: First of all, that is not what Carter is saying -- he is stating Bush is the worst at a few specific things (which is probably true). Bush's handling of 9/11 will forever prevent him from being ranked down with Warren G Harding (widely accepted as the worst president ever), James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson.

An interesting article is on Wikipedia entitled: Historical Rankings of US Presidents.

 

I can't disagree with that. Carter was a good person, a good man, but a poor president. I agree with what others have said: Carter's greatest accomplishments happened *after* his term as president - which was pretty darn poor.

I don't get it - tons of people criticize Bush - just turn on the TV. I fail to see how Carter's comments - just because he is a former president - qualify as indecent when the others do not. Unless you are saying that it is improper for *anyone* to criticize Bush - in which case you are trying to abridge 1st amendment rights. Unless you are in a position where impartiality is expected - such as a non-Fox News channel, then I fail to see how Carter's comments represent a lack of "decency and protocol". I think the main reasons that former presidents don't speak out on things like this is because, ultimately, their opinions carry no more weight than that of the average person. So really, how are Carter's comments somehow worse than those of dozens of other people you see on TV every day?

 

Aldeth: I heard a former president once say he would not contradict or criticize a president in office. He said something like 'after knowing the pressures and responsibilities of the job, it would not be right.'

The word of a former president carries a lot of weight -- especially in political circles.

 

T2 - Well, yes. I understand what you are saying, T2. And TGS should feel appeased becaused Carter retracted some of his comments this morning -- proving once again how spineless he is. I guess the media heat was getting to him. Even the little person from the basically mindless and fluffy Today Show, who was interviewing him, was all over Carter for his comments.

Nevertheless, it's time that some people came down off their high-horses and started putting America and the American people first. While I'm all for respecting the "office" of the president -- regardless of what kind of criminals and/or idiots have populated it throughout its lack-luster history -- I think that misplaced loyalty and phony protocol to a corrupt or useless president is not in the best interest of the country or its people.

It's time that people started standing up for what's right rather than just going along with senseless protocol, which is only crafted to make us all "feel better" about ourselves and the poor decisions made by our incompetent would-be leaders.

[ May 21, 2007, 17:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Not a complete retraction, but it can be found here:

Carter Says Remarks on Bush Careless

I would agree the remarks were careless, true, but careless. However, the White House coming out and calling Carter 'increasing irrelevant' was equally careless (but par for the administration). A former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner is never irrelevant when talking about world affairs.

 

Actually the United States in the past has actually had some pretty bad history when it comes to the freedom of speech and press. Hell, Woodrow Wilson was destroying freedom of speech with the help of the Supreme Court post WWI (Woodrow Wilson, the "Great Democrat" hated socialism and went to lengths to imprison and silence socialist organizers). Again in the 1960s and 1970s we saw more of this with the disruption of protesters, the tracking of people who purchased or subscribed to certain newspapers, schools forcing the removal of articles of clothing related to protest of the Vietnam conflict, etc... For all the talk of freedom of speech, we're actually a nation who hasn't until relatively recently tolerated the concept.

 

I think this is right on. That Carter's comments were disrespectful of the office he once held doesn't mean they outweigh the objective truth in the words. Those who focus on the faux pas are missing the forest for the trees.

 

What I don't quite get is this:

Let's just for the sake of the analogy assume emperors were actually elected in Rome, and imagine one of Nero's predecessors criticises him for his orgy of 'creative destruction', aka torching Rome.

That's precisely what Bush has done in the fields where Carter is criticising him.

Is this somehow inappropriate because elder statesmen are supposed to be decorative and silent? Or because the president's job is stressful and emperors sure are under a lot of pressure, and with the city burning, it's a disaster and everybody line up behind the commander in chief until the danger is over!
So everybody shut up and get in line! Behind the surge the Endsieg awaits us! There is light at the end of the tunnel, if we all and Carter only shut up for the next crucial six months and let the decider decide and be the commander guy, everything will be just swell.

Sorry, but that is just asinine. To make that argument allows Bush to hide behind the office of the president, and continue his bumbling, bungling and blundering undisturbed, unchecked and undeterred as long as he only kicks up enough crap. That is quite a convenient way to evade accountability.

There is a time when acting 'appropriate' no longer equals acting responsibly.

 

Silence is agreement. When we, including former Presidents, can no longer criticize our elected or appointed officials we no longer have anything resembling a democracy.

Plus I expect this Presidential Election to be throwing mud in quantities. Issues are going to be buried deep in a hog wallow.

 

Not unprecedented. See: 1898-WWII.

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Panama...the list goes on. And on. And on.

Point being, focusing on Nixon or Reagan, screwy though they were, obscures the more vital point; they were simply continuing American policies that had been in place since the Spanish-American War.

 

We merely maintained the colonial regimes that where already in place. Under Ike we used military force to remove the Guatemalan government and allowed the establishment of a military dictatorship. Under Nixon we used special ops to remove President Allende and establish a military dictatorship. In the 1960s, under I believe L.B.J., we suppressed a a revolution in El Salvador against a government notorious for it's civil rights abuses. In Nicaragua, under Reagan, we supplied the reactionary rebels who had recently been over thrown by their fellow Nicaraguans for civil rights abuses with firearms and refused to give foreign aid to the Nicaraguan Government.

The marines who where brought in during the early 1900s where predominately protecting U.S. interests in the area (predominately military related if not related to the Canal). Protecting interesting in a foreign country, while creating sovereignty issues, isn't an outrageous policy move. The marines were also theoretically similar in their role to the U.N. Peacekeepers found in unstable third world countries.

From the 1950s-1980s we played Cold War politics with the 3rd World and took actions that at the very least radically altered South American politics and still have left a hand full of those countries in destabilized conditions. The amount of people butchered in Guatemala alone is astounding.

 

Your understanding in error. Quite frankly, I haven't the time to fully explain why. Nor do I think I could satisfactorily correct your understanding via a message board, had I the time. Instead, I will suggest a few books. Note that the links are to google books' previews of the texts; please peruse them. I suspect you will find a great deal of new and pertinent information.

Inevitable Revolutions - Walter LaFeber
The New Empire - Walter LaFeber
Overthrow - Stephen Kinzer
The Tragedy of American Diplomacy - William A. Williams

 

And I can pull up articles to back up my position as well.

Latin America post WWII is nothing like Latin America pre WWII, economically or politically, nor is it's relation with the United States, who suddenly has come to see Latin America as a potential area for Communist subversions.

Go forth scholarly articles. The college provides them so I might as well use them.

link 1

link 2

link 3

link 4

These should provide very clear reasons as to the drastically different relation the U.S. had with Latin America at one point and another point that led a body count between the different Latin American countries that numbered into the millions.

[ May 23, 2007, 22:16: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I skimmed the first article, read the second, and skimmed the third. They do not, so far as I can tell, support your position. In fact, they support the notion that there was a great deal of continuity in US policy towards Latin America pre/post-WWII.

The second paragraph of the first page of the third article explicitly states that the, ah, excesses of Reagan were the logical consequences of a system which had been in place for 'decades, centuries'. Page seven of the first article states that 'traditionally, the US has linked her own interests with the maintanence of stability in Latin America'.

The fourth article appears to be an apologia for American hegemony. It is, in fact, reminiscent of the White Man's Burden. The author believes the Alliance for Progress was doomed to failure because of the state of Latin American political systems, and gives no attention to the role of the US in shaping and maintaining those systems. The author explicitly states that US control is probably the only way for Latin American states to develop (which I think we can discount, given the events of the 37 years since the article's publication). The author, though he acknowledges the US's history of armed intervention (incidentally bolstering the notion of continuity in US policy), does not appear to believe 'American strength' (a term he does not define) is integral to the 'exploitation' of Latin America. When the author describes the political systems of Latin America, he does not mention the US. I could go on, but that's enough.

Perhaps you could explain why you feel the articles support your view. Again, I acknowledge upfront that I merely skimmed the first and third articles.

 

Kettle, meet pot, pot, kettle.

Isn't there a crooked election that need certification out there somewhere?

I would quote the Peanut Song right now...but I have sworn off disrespecting ex-Presidents.

Look, President Carter is an old man with no legacy and a horrible record in his 1 term in office. As bad as Bush is he has something that Carter can never touch: Bush was elected to a second term (unless you are still one of those koolaide drinkers who still believe that Gore really won in 2000). Some of what has been laid at Carter's feet was his fault, some of it wasn't, but he is looking for someone to take the "last bad really President" tag off his forehead. The sad thing is that he doesn't need this. He has done a few semi-respectable things internationally as a former President, and he isn't widely hated personally. If he will just shut up and bide his time the next President will be happy to use him as a special international envoy, and he can go to China and work on our Sino-relations and will become beloved for stabilizing our relationship with the far east.